The military’s manpower and resources are limited to designated and specific posts, and they cannot be physically present and provide the needed protection to all sectors 24/7. Private security companies like Triple Canopy, S.O.C, Osen-Hunter, and Academi can meet that gap. With an ample amount of veterans, they have no trouble filling that need.

In the Beginning

In the beginning, most (if not all) private security contractors (PSC) were former door kickers from C.A.G, SEAL Teams, and MARSOC/RECON. However, customer requests expanding, and the former either not leaving the military or wanting a regular 9-to-5 job made that task difficult.

It was then that executives decided to water down the initial criteria. With the lure of making as much in a year in the military in just half the time, many veterans and law enforcement personnel have submitted resumes to land a very sought-after position.

It is a long and drawn-out process, resumes are verified (yes, some put down prior SF/NSW/MARSOC experience), background checks are conducted, passports are applied for, and the good old drug tests are done. This initial vetting process can take anywhere from nine months to a year or more, and when it all comes back, and they have passed the paperwork drill, they are accepted as a candidate for employment.

Attitude

Then the second vetting process begins, including but not limited to shooting proficiency, physical stamina, strength (PT test), and general “attitude.”

Surprisingly most fail the attitude part.

Some arrive looking as if they raped a 511 mannequin, have a chip on their shoulder, and won't shut up about being ” In the shit, back when….” Later it’s found out that they never had any active combat experience, although having just been in theater counts. They then are informed that they did not follow the guidelines for training and are sent home.

For those possessing the NSW/SF/MARSOC background, an offer for a position with the PPD (Personal Protection Detail) element is given. There are, however, more difficult firearms and PT criteria that must be met.

When the vetting process is completed, and the paperwork is in order, the new employee is offered a contract for a certain number of years, with a commitment of deployed days per year at a specific daily rate.

Rules of Engagement

This is where the myths start and dreams are crushed.

Contractors are not mercenaries, they are not employed to carry out overt/covert operations. Contractors are a defensive tool on the broad security spectrum of things. They are either assigned to a PPD, if qualified or a regular detail. Mercenaries, however, are hired by a government to enact a specific offensive goal for a price, as in Executive Outcomes during the ’80s.

Which is not the case today.

The basic Rules of Engagement or R.O.E for contractors are simple; do not engage a target unless threatened. With the tragedy of Scott Helvenston and the incident involving Ray Davis, R.O.Es have been rewritten, rethought, reworked, and re-everything to ensure the contractor's safety while ensuring the customer's accountability.

Okay, what are these guys doing over there if they are not raping and pillaging?

If not assigned to a PPD detail, the contractor will likely stand a post, which may include radio communications, compound patrol foot/vehicle, I.D. checks, building entries, etc., which is not very exciting. The greeter at Walmart or the security guard at Target probably has more excitement.

Myth: Contractors are geared up to knock down doors, man armored vehicles and heavy machine guns, man towers for sniper hides.

Well, that is kind of true, to a point.

Most of the security force is made of local nationals who are THOROUGHLY checked and vetted before being trained. The training is done “boot camp style,” and the force is run like the company of soldiers. They are very well paid to look out for the safety of personnel and equipment protection. They man the entry gates and access points, search local personnel, search vehicles, and patrol outside the compound.

Contractors train and supervise the local guard force to the standard of the customer. There are armored vehicles, and some areas include heavy weapons, but that is a case of a catastrophic event as in Khowst province in 2009. There are qualified snipers in the contractor ranks, but they are not employed for that purpose. The tools provided are for the protection of the workforce and are not used in an offensive posture.

Contractors are issued equipment that rivals some ISAF personnel. The parent company provides the basic tools and safety equipment in which the contractor may perform his duties while being protected.

Issued items include but are not limited to body armor and vests, medical pouches, military-grade helmets, sidearms, and long-range weapons, usually an M-4. Most purchase their gear out of pocket. They are not allowed to use or bring personal firearms and are required to use only that issued by the customer.

Myth: Contractors are not bound by local, state, or federal laws. It’s a lawless country, and they have immunity.

Not quite. If an incident involves a contractor, then an investigation occurs.

The customer is accountable to the local government and governing U.S. body. The customer does not want to lose or revoke their contract for some stupid reason.

There are millions of dollars invested into a project, and contractors are considered a necessary evil. Past incidents like that of Justin Cannon and Christofer Drotleff left a very unsavory flavor for most. This is where the label of mercenary-pirate-raider was coined. There are guidelines and safeguards for the customer to employ if necessary.

The customer will likely not spend an exorbitant amount of time or effort to “save” the contractor and will refer back to the parent company. The parent company will investigate, and if found that the contractor violated any protocol, his contract will be revoked, and all protections and services are terminated.

This means if a contractor does something stupid and depending on the severity of the incident, he is fired and sent home and then possibly charged if warranted.

Myth: Contractors are paid too much for what they do and work for corrupt officials and companies.

Depends on what is defined as too much. The daily rate is based on the bid for the contract.

The adage “you get what you pay for” was proven correct in 2010 in Iraq. A private security company won a contract for security at a site outside of Baghdad. It paid its contractors only 5K per month with a year's commitment in the country, and the qualifications were so basic anybody who had seen a weapon in their military tour was offered a position.

The problem later appeared that more disciplinary issues and the numbers being sent home were mounting and not including those who decided to terminate their contract early, either moving to a better-paying contract or it was not worth the time. They later lost the contract and rebid with the daily rate at its current level.

Lessons learned from the past dictate the current policies and standards that are in place now, and they may even change in the future. American-based companies are given very specific guidelines from U.S. Agencies to prevent corruption and exploitation. These government agencies constantly review licenses, protocols, authorizations, accountability, and inventories to the point where it becomes a nuisance.

There are many other myths and concerns about the private security contractor that are too many to cite and explain here, these are just a few but the most popular.

Your average contractor is a patriot who has found employment close to what he had in the military and can make a decent living. The comradeship and the brotherhood formed have advantages and flaws, as in the military.

You will run into guys you have not seen in years and form new friendships, but there is some that slip thru the crack, as may occur with any position. Then there is always the drama and catfighting, whining and complaining…just like you never left. Article by: Erek Sanchez

Guidelines such as those from the International Code of Conduct Association, the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance, and the United Nations ask that private forces take a gender-conscious approach to provide security. Both sets of recommendations, released in 2019, include training on preventing sexual exploitation and abuse, implementing grievance mechanisms for victims, and establishing national oversight authorities. The International Code of Conduct Association recommends that security contractors explicitly define and prohibit the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse in company policies. The Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance and the UN focus not only on the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse but also on gender-based violence more generally and recommend integrating a gender perspective through consultations with women’s organizations.

While these guidelines provide a useful framework for contractors, they risk replicating errors of both state and UN peacekeeping operations in their current form. WPS, for instance, focuses heavily on violence during conflict, potentially overlooking catalysts that might be rooted in non-conflict circumstances. Sexual violence during conflict, while considered a distinct form of abuse, may also reflect peacetime gender relations.

Addressing gender in private security must include a holistic approach, unpacking the industry’s foundations and the ways in which contractors replicate security approaches that already put women at risk by either supplementing public forces or by contributing to the militarization of new spaces. For one, they share innate links to military structures, both in operational output and staff, with many composed of former military or law enforcement personnel. Security contractors need to respond to gendered harm but, more significantly, need to reflect on how their presence can reinforce militarization, continue pre-conflict patterns of violence, and foster other gendered abuses.

THE SHORTCOMINGS

There are two major shortcomings in the security contractors’ WPS agenda implementation.

The first is related to the overall approach, where most contractors take a binary and exclusive approach to gender. Only recently has attention been paid to including LGBTQ+ individuals and gender minorities in the WPS agenda. Much of WPS also emphasizes women’s involvement without unpacking how racial, ethnic, and other identity markers affect opportunities for engagement, stunting the ability of WPS to act as a transformational policy agenda.

In a similar vein, PMSC guidance does not mention sexual orientation, transgender individuals, or gender minorities, creating a reductionist understanding of how gender presents itself and making invisible much of the harm that could occur. Current guidance neither considers the impacts of contracting companies’ activities on LGBTQ+ individuals and gender minorities nor addresses the needs of LGBTQ+ employees in PMSCs. The International Code of Conduct Association’s prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse guidance only identifies women, failing to acknowledge that risks and their associated prevention mechanisms may be unique for LGBTQ+ individuals. Recommendations by the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance and the UN, though acknowledging that the impacts of security companies vary across gender identities, states only that “men and women” should be part of gender-conscious planning.

The current guidance also ignores gender interactions with other identity markers. In a racially stratified industry, security contractors often leverage gendered frameworks to subordinate personnel along racial lines. Western contractors are valued for their expertise, while individuals from underdeveloped nations earn less and may be viewed as less qualified and, therefore, less masculine. WPS’s imposition on contractors requires a reframing that unpacks how other identities interact with gender to affect personnel’s positionality and analyzes the impacts of private operations outside of a gender binary.

Second, the implementation of the WPS agenda ignores the principal-agent issue in PMSCs. WPS’s heavy focus on implementation through government institutions overlooks the informal ways that women participate in peace processes and the relevance of nongovernmental and civil society organizations as forms of governance. Gendered guidance for security contractors also explicitly mentions state responsibility in overseeing private behavior at the cost of incorporating other clients, overlooking how these contracts influence private forces’ activities.

Based on incident data between 1990 and 2016, governments constitute the bulk of contracting companies’ client base. Still, commercial actors follow closely behind, with rebels, organizations, and individuals also outsourcing security to the private sector. The state is not unimportant, but it is not the only governor of contractor behavior either. Each client also carries with them unique gender-related concerns. The extractive industry, for instance, is notoriously linked to perpetuating gendered harm, and its contractual relations with security contractors are both unlimited and ungoverned.

Applying a framework built around the state’s interests and capabilities to non-state actors means that current guidance does not grapple with how the different interests of security contractors’ clients impact the interests of the organization and the likelihood that it will be able to meaningfully implement WPS reforms.

REFORMING THE WPS AGENDA

Despite state adoption of WPS, gender tends to remain sidelined in peace processes. In 2015, only 23% of peace operations were reported to be led by women, and the share of female uniformed personnel was below 4%. And women’s participation remains limited and performative in many cases. Parallel challenges are visible in the private sector. The share of female personnel remains low and women that are hired tend to be relegated to administrative roles, at least in private security companies.

When measurable goals for security contractors are provided, there is little in the way of clear articulations as to precisely how security contractors and governments can effectively implement guidance. Performance indicators tend to include measures such as the extent to which contractors’ documents refer to prohibiting gender-based violence and outline employees’ responsibilities. These standards represent a rhetorical shift, not a substantive one.

Checklist items relegate lived experiences and daily interactions to the minutiae, allowing for trackable measures without catalyzing transformation. Scholars and practitioners have echoed similar concerns in WPS’s application to governments. Like the same soup reheated, it’s the same agenda, just privatized.

Despite gaps, recent guidance represents notable progress in attempts to unpack PMSC operations along gendered lines. But while building a gender-oriented framework for the private security sector, the WPS agenda needs to be reformed, not reproduced.

Anne Lauder is an MA candidate in International Studies at the University of Denver, specializing in gender and security and research methods. Her research focuses on private military and security companies.